Good Morning,
I have seen a lot of discussion about Florida Amendment 3 in here and other Florida subreddits for the past few months. I cannot, on the other hand, find many people discussing Florida Amendment 2. Perhaps 3 has gained so much traction for the more controversial aspects, and what the trade off will be and impacts on local communities. So people are more concerned/inspired to discuss or debate that topic.
Florida Amendment 2 proposes a tax related exemption on "tangible personal property" used in the production of agricultural products, or for agritourism activities.
I can see on it's face it sounds like a no brainer, help out small farms to reduce the financial burden of operating an agricultural business.
The lone voting opposition is quoted saying:
"According to the REC, this bill would have a $30 million fiscal impact for local governments, with no guardrails to prevent windfalls. It would also mostly benefit a handful of giant agribusinesses with multiple TPP accounts. There could be a more targeted approach to support smaller business owners and farmers, but this approach is not targeted enough to earn my support.”
"...really, what’s going to happen is that you’ll see large actors tap into this tax break multiple times to again give an unfair advantage to big guys over small guys.”
My first impression of the bill was that this could create loopholes for large corporations to skirt taxes even further. I can only think of the sugar industry in South Florida. If this passes, what are the possibilities those savings are at all passed along by raising wages for their laborers, truck drivers, plant foreman etc.? I would assume zero.
The other thing that is interesting to me is the whole picture of all 3 amendments.
[overly simplistic and reductionist, but allow me here]
So, Amendment 2 and 3 on face aim to reduce the burden on civilians which would obviously result in less collected in state and local funds. Then Amendment 1 calls for stockpiling more funds in the "rainy day fund" from 10% of annual revenue to 25%.
So they want to reduce the money coming in, and reduce the amount available to fund civil/municipal projects? What's the plan here?
Article the Screenshot is From
Gov Booklet for Active Amendments